Improving patient recruitment to multicentre clinical trials: the case for employing a data manager in a district general hospital-based oncology centre

Present Status and Perspectives on Future Roles of Japanese Clinical Research Coordinators

Background

The new Clinical Trials Act that recently came into effect in Japan emphasizes the reliability of investigator-initiated clinical trials. Although Japanese clinical research coordinators have been mainly engaged in operational roles in industry-initiated clinical trials for drug approval (registration trials), broadening their contribution to cover more types of clinical research may lead to quality improvement of clinical research. To ultimately establish a clinical research infrastructure that meets the needs of the new era of Clinical Trials Act, here we gathered basic information on how clinical research coordinators might make such contributions.

Methods

We conducted a survey using self-reporting questionnaires in clinical research-related personnel to examine present status and the perspectives toward broader contribution of clinical research coordinators. The study participants were attendee of group discussion of a clinical research-related meeting in Shikoku area of Japan held in August 2017.

Results

Among 88 participants, 69 responded (response rate: 78.4%) and 68 respondents (98.6%) were engaged in support and management of clinical research. The main area of involvement was industry-initiated registration trials (48, 69.7%), and main roles of involvement were cooperators who plays roles under the guidance of investigators (41, 59.5%). When divided by occupation into clinical research coordinators (n = 41) and other clinical research-related personnel (n = 28), approximately half of the respondents in each group replied positively to wanting broader involvement of clinical research coordinators as a clinical research professional.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that about half of the clinical research coordinators and other clinical research-related personnel view a broadening of involvement of clinical research coordinators in research activities positively. Accordingly, a structured practical program aimed at encouraging such involvement may help to expand and strengthen their contribution into the future. Whether greater involvement of clinical research coordinators in clinical research will help to ensure the reliability of investigator-initiated clinical research warrants further study.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an automated screening algorithm in an inpatient clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Screening and recruitment for clinical trials can be costly and time-consuming. Inpatient trials present additional challenges because enrollment is time sensitive based on length of stay. We hypothesized that using an automated prescreening algorithm to identify eligible subjects would increase screening efficiency and enrollment and be cost-effective compared to manual review of a daily admission list.

METHODS

Using a before-and-after design, we compared time spent screening, number of patients screened, enrollment rate, and cost-effectiveness of each screening method in an inpatient diabetes trial conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital. Manual chart review (CR) involved reviewing a daily list of admitted patients to identify eligible subjects. The automated prescreening (APS) method used an algorithm to generate a daily list of patients with glucose levels ≥ 180 mg/dL, an insulin order, and/or admission diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The census generated was then manually screened to confirm eligibility and eliminate patients who met our exclusion criteria. We determined rates of screening and enrollment and cost-effectiveness of each method based on study sample size.

RESULTS

Total screening time (prescreening and screening) decreased from 4 to 2 h, allowing subjects to be approached earlier in the course of the hospital stay. The average number of patients prescreened per day increased from 13 ± 4 to 30 ± 16 (P < 0.0001). Rate of enrollment increased from 0.17 to 0.32 patients per screening day. Developing the computer algorithm added a fixed cost of US$3000 to the study. Based on our screening and enrollment rates, the algorithm was cost-neutral after enrolling 12 patients. Larger sample sizes further favored screening with an algorithm. By contrast, higher recruitment rates favored individual CR.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the before-and-after design of this study, it is possible that unmeasured factors contributed to increased enrollment.

CONCLUSION

Using a computer algorithm to identify eligible patients for a clinical trial in the inpatient setting increased the number of patients screened and enrolled, decreased the time required to enroll them, and was less expensive. Upfront investment in developing a computerized algorithm to improve screening may be cost-effective even for relatively small trials, especially when the recruitment rate is expected to be low.

Costs of recruiting couples to a clinical trial

Multiple barriers contribute to the slow recruitment of participants to research studies, which in turn extends the time required to translate promising scientific discoveries into proven therapeutic interventions. A small but growing literature is developing on the extraordinary costs of recruiting participants to studies, and thereby demonstrating that underestimating the cost of participant recruitment can contribute to these recruitment problems. These recruitment challenges and costs are exacerbated when the participants' study eligibility is determined by relatively narrowly defined illness parameters. Recruitment challenges are further compounded when dyads (two individuals engaged in a sociologically significant relationship, such as husbands and wives, siblings or extended families) must be recruited to an illness-focused study. For these latter groups, there are no data to guide researchers in how to anticipate those participant recruitment costs. This paper describes the staff costs for a variety of strategies used to recruit participants to a randomized supportive care study for couples who were within 18 months of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Pegged to the value of the U.S. dollar for the period, the average cost of staff time was $288 per recruited and enrolled dyad, plus a promised additional $100 incentive for study retention. Within the strategies used, the staff costs per recruited dyad ranged from $152 to $1688. Accrual per strategy ranged from 0 to 107 enrolled couples. When asked for secondary sources of information about the study, many participants reported more than one source of study referral, reflective of the multifaceted recruitment strategies deployed. In spite of innovative, culturally competent, and broad based recruitment methods, attainment of a diverse sample was difficult to accomplish in this study. Having estimates of the actual cost of recruiting dyads to research studies can help investigators prepare realistic study budgets.